Sofia Strömmer1, Wendy Lawrence2, Taylor Rose3, Christina Vogel2, Daniella Watson3, Joanne N Bottell3, Janice Parmenter4, Nicholas C Harvey2, Cyrus Cooper5, Hazel Inskip2, Janis Baird2, Mary Barker2. 1. MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK; NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, UK. Electronic address: ss3@mrc.soton.ac.uk. 2. MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK; NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, UK. 3. MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK. 4. NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, UK. 5. MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK; NIHR Oxford Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, University of Oxford, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify reasons underlying women's refusal to participate in a pregnancy trial and to identify ways of increasing recruitment. DESIGN: Mixed methods study using a questionnaire and qualitative interviews. SAMPLE: A questionnaire asking them to indicate reasons for their decision was completed by 296 pregnant women who declined to participate in one of two trials of nutritional supplementation in a large teaching hospital in southern England. Qualitative interview data were collected from two samples of pregnant women: 1) 30 women who declined to participate in a trial but completed the questionnaire; and 2) 44 women who participated in a trial. RESULTS: Questionnaire data from pregnant women who declined to participate suggested the major barriers to participation were study requirements, including taking study medication, having a bone scan or blood tests, or being too busy. Thematic analysis of interview data identified differences in self-efficacy and levels of trust in medical research between participants and decliners. Participants believed that the research would cause no harm, while decliners felt they or their unborn child would be at risk. When faced with potential obstacles, participants found ways around them while decliners felt they were insurmountable. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment methods for pregnancy trials should focus on building women's trust in the trial, and on enhancing women's self-efficacy so they feel able to meet trial requirements. Suggestions for building trust include investing time in open, honest discussion of the risks and benefits of participation, improving visibility of the research team, testimonials from previous participants and advertising study safety and ethical conduct. Self-efficacy can be enhanced by training research staff in empowering styles of communication enabling women to feel heard and supported to problem-solve. These strategies could be implemented relatively easily into pregnancy trial protocols, and their effectiveness tested through their impact on recruitment rates.
OBJECTIVE: To identify reasons underlying women's refusal to participate in a pregnancy trial and to identify ways of increasing recruitment. DESIGN: Mixed methods study using a questionnaire and qualitative interviews. SAMPLE: A questionnaire asking them to indicate reasons for their decision was completed by 296 pregnant women who declined to participate in one of two trials of nutritional supplementation in a large teaching hospital in southern England. Qualitative interview data were collected from two samples of pregnant women: 1) 30 women who declined to participate in a trial but completed the questionnaire; and 2) 44 women who participated in a trial. RESULTS: Questionnaire data from pregnant women who declined to participate suggested the major barriers to participation were study requirements, including taking study medication, having a bone scan or blood tests, or being too busy. Thematic analysis of interview data identified differences in self-efficacy and levels of trust in medical research between participants and decliners. Participants believed that the research would cause no harm, while decliners felt they or their unborn child would be at risk. When faced with potential obstacles, participants found ways around them while decliners felt they were insurmountable. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment methods for pregnancy trials should focus on building women's trust in the trial, and on enhancing women's self-efficacy so they feel able to meet trial requirements. Suggestions for building trust include investing time in open, honest discussion of the risks and benefits of participation, improving visibility of the research team, testimonials from previous participants and advertising study safety and ethical conduct. Self-efficacy can be enhanced by training research staff in empowering styles of communication enabling women to feel heard and supported to problem-solve. These strategies could be implemented relatively easily into pregnancy trial protocols, and their effectiveness tested through their impact on recruitment rates.
Authors: Alison M McDonald; Rosemary C Knight; Marion K Campbell; Vikki A Entwistle; Adrian M Grant; Jonathan A Cook; Diana R Elbourne; David Francis; Jo Garcia; Ian Roberts; Claire Snowdon Journal: Trials Date: 2006-04-07 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Jo Rick; Jonathan Graffy; Peter Knapp; Nicola Small; David J Collier; Sandra Eldridge; Anne Kennedy; Chris Salisbury; Shaun Treweek; David Torgerson; Paul Wallace; Vichithranie Madurasinghe; Adwoa Hughes-Morley; Peter Bower Journal: Trials Date: 2014-10-25 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Elena Marbán-Castro; Clara Pons-Duran; Laura García-Otero; Haily Chen; Luis Bernardo Herrera; María Del Mar Gil; Anna Goncé; Elena Ferriols-Pérez; Miguel Ángel Rodríguez; Paloma Toro; Azucena Bardají; Raquel González; Clara Menéndez; Cristina Enguita-Fernàndez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-10-13 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Kinga Papiez; Elizabeth Tutton; Emma E Phelps; Janis Baird; Matthew L Costa; Juul Achten; Phoebe Gibson; Daniel C Perry Journal: Bone Jt Open Date: 2021-06
Authors: Matthew D McDonald; Stephan U Dombrowski; Rebecca Skinner; Eileen Calveley; Paula Carroll; Andrew Elders; Cindy M Gray; Mark Grindle; Fiona M Harris; Claire Jones; Pat Hoddinott Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2020-10-06 Impact factor: 4.615